Giving Science Innovation Systems a 'Nudge'

Technology Innovation Management Review

Kirsty de Jong¹  Shirley Leitch²  Sally Davenport³  Urs Daellenbach⁴  Jarrod Haar⁵ 

[1] 

Victoria Business School

Kirsty de Jong is an early career researcher in the ‘;Seed projects and the larger Rangatahi (youth-led) Spearhead project involved in the Challenge. Prior to joining the Challenge, Kirsty was with The Behavioural Insights Team - a social purpose research company who advise on, and redesign public services using behavioural science. She has a Master’; National Science Challenge based out of the Victoria Business School in Wellington, New Zealand. Her research focuses on the behavioural aspects of the 30+ “;Science for Technological Innovation’;high risk and reward”

关键词: behavioural economics;    behavioural science;    choice architecture;    innovation policy;    mission-led science;    research impact.;   

DOI  :  http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1275

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

In this article we consider the role that contextual factors play in science innovation systems – that is, the choice architecture, that influences the orientation and outcomes of publicly-funded research. More specifically, we examine how choice architects, particularly policymakers and funding administrators, can affect the decision-making behaviour of researchers. The context for today’s science innovation systems continues to shift as governments seek solutions to the world’s “grand societal challenges”, such as climate change and ageing populations, in addition to greater and more demonstrable impact from funded research. This means that the assumptions of “basic research [being] performed without thought of practical ends” (Bush, 1945) that have shaped such projects, actually run counter to the growing expectations of greater commercialisation and use of multidisciplinary mission-led approaches. We argue that a closer examination of the choice architecture for publicly-funded research is required to understand and address how these potentially conflicting objectives may be pursued most productively through interventions that could form the basis of a novel, behaviourally-based toolkit for science innovation policy.

【 授权许可】

Unknown